Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request sought records related to committee studies of foreign election interference. The OIC found that PCO did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to the large volume of records and slow consultations. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response by November 15, 2024, which PCO has committed to doing.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits.
• Deemed refusal of access due to non-response.
• Timeliness of consultations with other government departments.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request for records concerning G&R Recyclage. ISC cited the large volume of records (over 17,000 pages) and the need for third-party consultations as reasons for the delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded, ordering ISC to issue third-party notices by October 1, 2024, and provide a complete response by December 12, 2024. ISC indicated it would comply with the order.

• Reasonableness of time extension for access to information request
• Volume of records and complexity of processing
• Necessity of third-party consultations

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access to information request for electronic records mentioning specific terms within the extended deadline. The investigation found that PCO did not meet its response obligation, deeming access refused. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response by November 30, 2024, and to provide interim releases where possible. PCO has indicated it will implement the order.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Application of deeming provision for refusal of access
• Reasonableness of delays due to consultations and workload

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request was for records related to "ICSI Meetings 2001". The investigation found that PCO did not respond by the required date, and was therefore deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The delay was attributed to the ATIP office's failure to initiate consultations and process the request promptly. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response within 36 business days, and PCO has confirmed it will comply.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response under the Act
• Institution's responsibility for delays caused by consultations

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned records related to aircraft operations and restrictions. The investigation found that the institution took three months to locate potentially responsive records, leading to an unacceptable delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered Transport Canada to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limit.
• Unacceptable delay in locating and processing responsive records.
• Whether the institution met its obligations under section 7 of the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned documentation related to unidentified objects shot down over Yukon and Lake Huron in February 2023. The Information Commissioner found that DND did not meet its response deadline and is deemed to have refused access. An order was issued requiring DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limit.
• DND's reliance on internal offices (RCAF and CFINTCOM) for responsive records.
• The interpretation of 'response' under the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limit. The complainant also alleged that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to meet its obligations to assist the requester. The Commissioner found that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to assist the complainant. Justice also failed to respond within the time limit, leading to a deemed refusal. The Commissioner ordered Justice to remove the hold, provide a complete response by May 17, 2029, and provide regular updates and interim releases.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit (s. 7 ATIA)
• Improperly placing an access request on hold
• Failure to meet obligations to assist the requester (s. 4(2.1) ATIA)
• Deemed refusal of access (s. 10(3) ATIA)

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for materials related to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped this request with others to justify the extension. While the investigation found no improper regrouping, it determined that PSPC failed to justify the 768-day extension for processing the records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a)
• Improper regrouping of access requests under paragraph 30(1)(f)
• Timeliness of response to access request

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning House of Commons committee studies related to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation within the extended time limit. The CRA acknowledged significant delays due to a backlog of records from one of its Offices of Primary Interest. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered the CRA to provide a complete response by January 8, 2025. Recommendations were also made for improved internal processes and accountability for timely record provision.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit.
• Delays caused by internal OPI record retrieval.
• Need for improved CRA internal processes for ATIP compliance.
• Accountability for delays in providing responsive records.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for specific reports and recommendations within the 30-day timeframe required by the Access to Information Act. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the extended deadline and is therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered DND to complete the retrieval and provide a response to the request within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a "response" under the Act
• Consequences of failing to respond within the statutory time limits

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a specific standing offer. PHAC claimed an extension of 255 days due to the volume of records, citing a need for 180 days under paragraph 9(1)(a). The Commissioner found that PHAC failed to demonstrate that the 180-day extension was reasonable, as it did not show sufficient rigour in calculating the time needed. Consequently, the extension was deemed invalid, and PHAC was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a)
• Definition of a 'large number of records'
• Adequacy of justification for processing time
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3)

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) improperly withheld information related to payment requests from Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG). The request sought official documents from January 2016 to March 2019. While the complainant later narrowed the complaint, the investigation focused on exemptions related to third-party financial information and disclosure restrictions. The Commissioner found that only information concerning pricing and contractual relationships met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c).

• Application of section 20(1)(c) regarding financial impact on a third party.
• Application of section 20(1)(b) regarding confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information.
• Application of section 24(1) regarding disclosure restricted by another law.
• Burden of proof for third-party exemptions.

The complainant alleged that the time National Defence (DND) took to respond to an access request regarding military equipment sent to Ukraine was unreasonable. The OIC found that DND did not meet the requirements for a valid time extension. DND was deemed to have refused access. Following discussions facilitated by the OIC, the complainant narrowed the scope of the request, and DND then estimated a six-month response time. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response by November 25, 2024.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether DND met the requirements for a time extension due to volume of records under paragraph 9(1)(a).
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) due to failure to respond within the extended period.
• Impact of narrowing the request on the response timeline.

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request. The request was for communications related to designated projects in Western Canada. IAAC extended the response time by 880 days, but the Information Commissioner found that IAAC did not adequately justify the length of this extension, particularly under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. Consequently, the Commissioner deemed the extension invalid, ordered IAAC to respond by April 23, 2025, and found the complaint to be well-founded.

• Reasonableness of the 880-day time extension under subsection 9(1)(a) of the ATIA
• Whether IAAC demonstrated sufficient rigour in calculating the extension period
• Whether IAAC's delay constituted a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request for specific historical files within the extended time limit. The investigation found that LAC did not respond by the required date, and was therefore deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The delay was attributed to the ATIP office's failure to process the request in a timely manner. The Commissioner ordered LAC to provide a complete response within 36 business days, but LAC indicated it would not be implementing the order due to existing workload.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limits.
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act.
• The institution's obligation to respond to an access request even when deemed to have refused.
• The institution's notice of non-implementation of the Commissioner's order.